Evaluation Study

Public Private Partnership Programme

November 2008

Nordic Consulting Group A/S Kirkevej 8 DK-2630 Taastrup Denmark Authors: Per Kirkemann & Marie-Louise Appelquist

i

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................ iii

Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background for the evaluation study ................................................................... 1

1.2 Background for and introduction to the concepts ............................................. 2

1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 5

2. Programme setting ..................................................................................... 6

2.1 Private sector involvement in development assistance ..................................... 6

2.2 Danish business programmes and instruments .................................................. 7

2.3 The Public Private Partnerships Programme ...................................................... 7

2.4 Evaluation and assessment framework .............................................................. 11

3. Assessment of programme performance ................................................... 17

3.1 Programme overview ........................................................................................... 17

3.2 Selection criteria for projects assessed ............................................................... 18

3.3 Assessment of „workplace/supply chains partnerships‟ .................................. 20

3.4 Assessment of „partnerships for development of CSR tools‟ ......................... 21

3.5 Assessment of „innovative partnerships‟ ........................................................... 22

3.6 Programme management and reporting procedures........................................ 23

4. Evaluation synthesis and lessons learned ................................................. 24

4.1 Overall performance according to the PPP Programme criteria ................... 24

4.2 Performance according to the DAC criteria ..................................................... 25

4.3 Fulfilment of programme objectives .................................................................. 26

4.4 Lessons learned ..................................................................................................... 26

5. Conclusions ................................................................................................ 29

6. Recommendations ..................................................................................... 37

Annexes: Annex I Terms of Reference.

Annex II Full List of Projects Supported by the PPP Programme 2004-08

(can be downloaded at www.evaluation.dk)

ii

Annex III List of Persons Met

Annex IV List of References

Annex V Donor Definitions – PPP and CSR Assessment Criteria

(can be downloaded at www.evaluation.dk)

Annex VI Mapping of all PPP projects

Annex VII Project Case Studies (can be downloaded at www.evaluation.dk)

iii

List of Abbreviations

B2B Business to Business Programme BSPS Business Sector Programme Support CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DAC Development Assistance Committee (OECD) Danida Danish International Development Assistance DFID Department for International Development DKK Danish Kroner ERH Danida‟s Business and Contracts Department EVAL Danida‟s Evaluation Department GC Global Compact GNI Gross National Income GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit IFC International Finance Corporation, part of World Bank Group IFU Industrialisation Fund for Developing Countries MDG Millennium Development Goal MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OSH Occupational Safety and Health PFI Private Finance Initiative PPP Public Private Partnership ToR Terms of Reference UN United Nations USD United States Dollar WB World Bank WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development WHO World Health Organisation

1

Executive Summary

Background

This evaluation study focuses on the performance of Danida‟s Public Private Part-nership (PPP) Programme covering the first four-year period of its existence from May 2004 to June 2008. The evaluation study highlights the strengths, weaknesses and lessons learned. The study then gives recommendations in respect of how these could feed into Danida‟s decisions on the future scope and management of the Pro-gramme. The focal point of the Programme has been the promotion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in private entities and this should remain also in the fu-ture.

The Programme was focused in Danida‟s 15 programme countries with a window for also including non-programme countries. The Programme was launched as a five-year programme with a budget of DKK 100 million, with a target of DKK 20 million to be spent annually. Since its initiation in 2004, the PPP Programme has undergone a number of changes with respect to programme management proce-dures and the programme support framework. In November 2006, a set of guide-lines for the Programme was issued with clear programme objectives, a clearer dis-tinction was made between project types and clearer project assessment criteria were introduced. The changed selection and management procedures may have influ-enced both the type of projects that were supported and their impact.

The objectives of the Programme were formulated as follows: “The overall objective of the PPP Programme is to contribute to reducing poverty by promoting economic growth and social development in developing countries; and the immediate objective is to promote public private partnerships for better working and living conditions in developing countries by advancing corporate social responsibility and increasing opportunities for investments and enhanced competitiveness through innovation”. The attainment of the Programme‟s immediate objective is directly linked to the three types of partnership that were introduced with the new guidelines. These part-nerships “can advance CSR by targeting the local workplace and supply chain in the developing country, or through broader efforts targeting the market, sector or community”. The three types of partnership cover:

Workplace/supply chain partnerships (named blue sphere).

Partnerships for development of CSR tools (named green sphere).

Innovative partnerships (blue and green sphere). The six „development impact criteria‟ that were introduced with the new guidelines, provide the assessment framework for project applications. A project under the Programme must address at least one criterion, but may include any combination of the six criteria – provided that the project attains the immediate objective. The crite-ria are:

I Promotion of human and workers‟ rights

2

II Protection and improvement of the environment III Promotion of sound business practices IV Promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women V Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases VI Promotion of innovative partnerships for investments and competitiveness

Besides the six development impact criteria, „additionality‟ and „local ownership‟ are other important aspects that are emphasised in the PPP guidelines. Additionality means that “each partner’s contribution to the partnership is essential for carrying out the project activities”, which implies that Danida can only be a partner if it brings “additionality” to the partnership through provision of advisory services and/or financial support. Local ownership means that the local partner/partners play an essential role in im-plementing the project and continue to sustain project outcomes after project com-pletion.

PPP and CSR definitions

The term PPP was adopted by a number of development agencies during the sec-ond half of the 1990s in order to describe „partnerships‟ between the public and the private sector, in for example, infrastructure projects. Common for all the defini-tions used by the many development agencies working with public private partner-ships is that a public private partners ship is regarded as a contractually established entity that joins forces with, and which benefits from, the respective strengths of the pub-lic and private partners to provide a public good and/or service. In Danida‟s PPP Pro-gramme, however, the term is used rather differently. The main ambition of the Danida PPP Programme has been to promote the adoption of CSR in private en-terprises within the framework of the UN Global Compact (GC) and the wider Mil-lennium Development Goals (MDGs).

In spite of this, there is no universally accepted definition of CSR. The definition applied by International Finance Corporation (IFC) includes almost all the aspects of the definitions of CSR applied by the various donor organisations that Danida normally relates to. The IFC definition of CSR is as follows: "Corporate social responsi-bility is the commitment of businesses to contribute to sustainable economic development by working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their lives in ways that are good for business and for development." The GC is the most comprehensive global initiative in the CSR field and constitutes a framework for aligning business opera-tions and strategies with 10 universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment and anti-corruption.

Conclusions and recommendations

The conclusions of this evaluation study on Danida‟s PPP Programme are based on 12 case studies, which were drawn from a total of 36 projects funded between 2004 and 2008. The overall conclusions are that: the Programme has performed satisfac-torily; supported projects are relevant, although, in a few cases, projects have suf-fered from an inappropriate design; projects are generally effective, but have en-countered efficiency problems; there is a need for further clarification of the PPP

3

Programme concept and, finally, programme management procedures need to be improved. Based on these conclusions, the evaluation study recommends the fol-lowing:

1. The PPP Programme and the CSR definition: The PPP Programme should adopt more specific definitions in respect of both CSR and PPP that are compati-ble with the common international definitions.

2. Meeting of PPP Programme objectives: The Programme‟s overall objective should be maintained and the Programme framework (i.e. definitions, immediate ob-jective, and criteria) be amended to promote poverty reduction, economic growth, and social development. The Programme‟s immediate objective should be reformulated to reflect the essence and the intended outcomes of combining PPP and CSR.

3. Spheres: The applied terminology related to partnership types (the three spheres) should be reconsidered. A changed terminology should relate more directly to the subject matter than is the case with the current nomenclature.

4. The six development impact criteria: The six development impact criteria should generally be maintained, but with some adjustments – especially the criteria related to sound business practices, gender equality, and innovation.

5. Additionality and local ownership: The definitions of „additionality‟ and „local ownership‟, as contained in the current guidelines, should be substantially expanded and need to be incorporated as essential elements of the project design. The definition of local ownership should ensure that local public and private partners are substantially involved in project planning and implemen-tation. The Danish embassies‟ facilitating role should be maintained in pro-gramme countries. In those non-programme countries where the Programme has a large project portfolio and where there is a Danish embassy with a business sector focus, programme management should be decentralised to the embassy in order to enhance additionality (e.g. China).

6. Geographical spread of Programme projects: The Programme should re-orient geo-graphically and gradually become more concentrated in the programme countries. This could be ensured by a mechanism that prioritises the pro-gramme countries, and by an incentive mechanism that provides a relatively higher level of support to projects in programme countries than in non-programme countries. The non-programme countries should remain eligible for support during an interim period, until such time when the demand for projects in programme countries can adequately absorb Programme funding. During this interim period, it is still considered advisable to decentralise pro-ject management – also in non-programme countries – to the Danish em-bassy, cf. Recommendation 5.

7. Eligibility criteria for accessing Programme support: The Programme should remain eligible for small, medium and large companies. The project application crite-ria for accessing PPP Programme funding should be tightened consistently with the recommended amendments of the Programme content and scope.

4

8. Project formulation, monitoring and reporting procedures: Programme application, preparation and implementation procedures should be developed more clearly in accordance with the recommended amendments of the Programme content and scope as regards i.e. CSR and PPP definitions, immediate objec-tive, spheres, criteria, additionality and local ownership.

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background for the evaluation study

This evaluation study focuses on the performance of Danida‟s Public Private Part-nership (PPP) Programme during the first four-year period of its existence from May 2004 to June 2008. The evaluation study highlights the strengths and weak-nesses of the Programme and the lessons learned which could feed into Danida‟s decisions on the future scope and management of the Programme.

The PPP Programme was started as a pilot programme within one of Danida‟s business programmes and instruments. The Programme‟s focal point has been the enhancement of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – within the framework of the United Nations‟ Global Compact (GC) – through establishment of public pri-vate partnerships (see definitions below).

Since its start in 2004, the PPP Programme has undergone a number of changes as regards both management procedures and the supporting programme framework. The responsibility for assessing project applications, which initially was the respon-sibility of the Business and Contracts Department (ERH), has now been delegated to the Danish embassies in programme countries. This responsibility still rests with the ERH in non-programme countries. This division has created a demand for a common platform for assessment of the supported projects across embassies and Danida headquarters. This evaluation study will feed into this process.

In November 2006, a revised set of guidelines for the Programme was issued. These revised selection and management procedures may have influenced both the type of projects that were supported and their impact. This evaluation study covers all pro-jects from the inception of the PPP Programme in 2004 to mid-2008, i.e. projects approved both before and after the 2006 guidelines were issued. A common plat-form for assessment of the supported projects is applied for all projects in the evaluation. The evaluation and assessment framework is outlined in Section 2.4.

In accordance with the Terms of Reference (ToR), the objective of this evaluation study of the PPP Programme is threefold:

a) To assess its general performance of achieving enhanced corporate social re-sponsibility, based on a desk study of available documentation from a sample of ongoing and completed projects.

b) To assess the definition of CSR used in the Programme‟s projects.

c) To define assessment criteria for the projects in the Programme (based on the findings of the evaluation study and information on other donors‟ as-sessment criteria).

Furthermore, the ToR ask for recommendations regarding “how to increase focus on Africa and/or how to narrow the scope of the Programme to prioritise projects in light of increasing demand”.

2

In this chapter, a couple of key concepts related to the Programme are introduced and the methodology for the evaluation study is outlined. Chapter 2 presents the Programme setting, and spells out in detail the content and instruments of the PPP Programme. On this basis, the evaluation and assessment framework is constructed and presented at the end of the chapter. Chapter 3 contains the main analysis of the PPP Programme with the assessment of the selected case-study projects. Chapter 4 contains a synthesis of the analysis in Chapter 3 and lessons learned. The report is concluded with conclusions and recommendations, in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.

1.2 Background for and introduction to the concepts

Public private partnerships

The PPP terminology was first introduced as a concept in the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1992 as part of its efforts to make the public sector more effective, by drawing on private sector capacities, innovation and financial re-sources for addressing demands on public services, without increasing the indebted-ness of public entities. The establishment of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was the first systematic programme aimed at encouraging PPPs. The Labour govern-ment elected in 1997 continued with the PFI and sought to shift the emphasis to-wards the achievement of increased innovation and competition.

PPP is commonly defined as a contractual arrangement in which a service or busi-ness venture is funded and operated through a partnership between government and one or more private sector companies. These schemes constitute a different method for procuring public services and infrastructure by combining the best of both the public and the private sector, combined with an emphasis on value for money and delivery of quality public services.

The term PPP was also adopted by a number of development agencies during the second half of the 1990s in order to describe „partnerships‟ for, e.g. infrastructure projects. A survey of relevant donor agencies‟ definition of PPP is presented in An-nex V. The common characteristics of the definitions used by many donors are that a Public Private Partnership is regarded as a contractually established entity that joins forces and which benefits from the respective strengths of the public and private partners to provide a public good and/or service. Hence, the PPP involves public partici-pation in a new entity created to supply public goods, not simply the transfer of public funds to a private operator or the formation of a partnership aiming at sup-plying only private goods. Risk sharing is sometimes part of the contract. The defi-nition used by DFID spans the widest number of definitions and is described as fol-lows:

“Attracting private investment to spheres of activity traditionally regarded as the responsibility of the public sector.”

In Danida‟s PPP Programme the term is used rather differently. The main ambition

3

of the Danida PPP Programme has been to promote the adoption of CSR in private entities within the framework of the UN Global Compact and the wider Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Few other development agencies have chosen such an approach. The GTZ approach, with their programme for implementing CSR in supply chains, is the one which probably most resembles the approach taken by Danida.

The PPP Programme seeks to engage companies and organisations in promoting CSR in workplaces and supply chains (termed the „blue sphere‟) and also outside the immediate corporate sphere, e.g. local markets, sectors and communities (termed the „green sphere‟). Besides these two types of partnerships, the Programme also supports „innovative partnerships‟ that may operate in both spheres. The „partner-ship‟ in the PPP Programme consists of a Danish company or institution, and at least one local partner (which can be a company, an organisation and/or a public institution). Danish institutions can also enter the partnership. In all partnerships, Danida is the main public, non-implementing partner. This means that what Danida offers to the partnership, in addition to finance, is knowledge about local condi-tions, such as access to local networks, knowledge of the local institutions and the local business environment. Strictly speaking, the Danida PPP Programme can best be described as an advisory and funding mechanism for CSR related activities in de-veloping countries, both within the private sector, and potentially also in the public sector.

It is important to emphasise these differences in interpretation of the term „public private partnership‟ and make clear what Danida means with a “public private part-nership”, as the projects and partnerships in the PPP Programme will be measured against Danida‟s own definition and interpretation of the term, and not the general understanding, as outlined above, of what constitutes a PPP. Whether Danida‟s definition and use of the term PPP is consistent with the common use of the term is another discussion that will be taken up in the final recommendations.

Corporate social responsibility

There is no universally accepted definition of CSR. Definitions by selected CSR or-ganisations and development actors can be found in the survey presented in Annex V. The definition applied by International Finance Corporation (IFC) includes al-most all the aspects of the definitions of CSR applied by other donor organisations that Danida normally relates to, as well as the definitions used by the institutions surveyed. The IFC definition is as follows:

"CSR is the commitment of businesses to contribute to sustainable economic development by working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to im-prove their lives in ways that are good for business and for development."1

1 http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/economics.nsf/Content/CSR-IntroPage - The IFC definition is very close to the definition applied by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/economics.nsf/Content/CSR-IntroPage

4

The CSR framework that is used in Danida‟s PPP Programme is linked to the UN‟s GC. The GC is the most comprehensive global initiative in the CSR field and con-stitutes a framework for businesses, allowing them to align their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, la-bour standards, the environment and anti-corruption. The ten principles of GC are presented in the box below. The GC constitutes a voluntary framework initiative that businesses can align to and use to address CSR related issues and opportunities. This initiative will be further elaborated on in Section 2.1.

Danida‟s definition of CSR is linked to the GC principles with a particular fo-cus on the implementation of higher labour standards, environmental stan-dards, and sound business ethics into individual businesses‟ strategies. In the PPP Programme, Danida has chosen to focus on „strategic CSR‟, which implies a clear link between the core business of the partners and the CSR activities that are supported by the PPP Programme. Partners must enter a public private partnership on strategic commercial grounds and the activities supported by the PPP Programme must supplement and support the core business of the partner companies.

The fact that the special knowledge and competences of the partner companies are utilized for the benefit of the local company/community is seen by Danida as the major advantage of a “strategic CSR” approach. In this way partners contribute to solutions to social and en-vironmental challenges while creating new growth opportunities for the com-pany itself.

The growing number of companies engaged in CSR, as stated in the PPP Pro-gramme guidelines, “sees corporate social responsibility as an opportunity to make a difference, e.g. by promoting better working conditions for employees, while benefiting the company in terms of reduced staff turnover, greater transparency and business expansion”.2 This perception of CSR is less inclusive than the IFC definition, as it does not include the community and

2 Danida 2006, PPP guidelines, p. 4

United Nations’ Global Compact principles

Human Rights

- Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally pro-claimed human rights;

- Principle 2: make sure that they are not com-plicit in human rights abuses.

Labour Standards

- Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective rec-ognition of the right to collective bargaining;

- Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;

- Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour;

- Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Environment

- Principle 7: Businesses should support a pre-cautionary approach to environmental chal-lenges;

- Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility;

- Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly tech-nologies.

Anti-Corruption

- Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

5

the society at large.

1.3 Methodology

In this evaluation etudy, the analysis of the PPP Programme is based on a three-pronged approach. First a mapping of all 36 projects that have received support by the PPP Programme during the entire programme period from May 2004 to June 2008, was made in order to create an overview of the complete programme portfo-lio.

Secondly, a more in-depth desk study of selected projects was carried out based on a pre-selection made by Danida. The selected projects have a good geographical cov-erage, include projects that are well into their implementation phase and have broad thematic coverage. The total number of case studies selected is 12.

Thirdly, a field visit to China was carried out comprising visits to four of the se-lected PPP projects.

The analysis has drawn on literature searches, programme document reviews, inter-views with a number of project implementers and facilitators, and interviews with a few major Danish stakeholders. Further methodological considerations including evaluation and assessment criteria are presented in Chapter 2 following an introduc-tion to the PPP Programme.

6

2. Programme setting

2.1 Private sector involvement in development assistance

The roots of donor interest in private sector development go back to the early 1980s, when the international financial institutions, led by the WB and IMF, moved away from seeing the state and the public sector as the main driver of development. Correspondingly, the private sector and market forces were perceived as being in-strumental in promoting the economic growth required to achieve poverty reduc-tion. Privatisation of state-owned enterprises, deregulation, increased competition and the cutting back of the State‟s role were viewed as the optimal means of attain-ing development and thereby – directly and indirectly – poverty reduction. Bilateral donors could not ignore this private economic development model, which among other things involved mobilisation of a wider range of competences as well as miti-gation of a growing sense of aid fatigue.

At the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000, world leaders adopted the newly formulated Millennium Declaration in order to provide a unifying framework for de-velopment for the new millennium. The decla-ration specifically promoted the MDGs, see box to the right. Increased faith in the market was recognised in the UN system before the Millennium Summit, when the 10 principles of the Global Compact were established on the personal initiative of then UN Secretary Gen-eral, Kofi Annan. (See box in Section 1.2.)

Major corporations were invited to adopt the GC as part of their social responsibility commitments in cooperation with the UN. Thereby the Corporate Social Responsibility concept was introduced as a contem-porary approach to development, in which the state collaborated with the private sector and international organisations.

The importance of the private sector was further recognised at the Financing for Development Summit in 2002. With the general acceptance of the MDGs and the GC principles, one of the main trends in the inter-governmental processes was in-creased attention to mobilisation of resources from the private sector. Denmark was one of the driving forces in the preparatory process of this Summit. Also at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg the same year, UN member states agreed that in order to achieve the MDGs by 2015, there was a need to find ways of mobilising resources for development from the private sector. When the PPP Programme was launched in May 2004 it was explicitly expressed as a fol-low-up on the Johannesburg Summit.

Millennium Development Goals

1 - Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

2 - Achieve universal primary education

3 - Promote gender equality and empower women

4 - Reduce child mortality

5 - Improve maternal health

6 - Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7 - Ensure environmental sustainability

8 - Develop a Global Partnership for Development

7

2.2 Danish business programmes and instruments

In line with the expansion of the private sector‟s involvement in development de-scribed in Section 2.1, Danish support is provided to a number of business pro-grammes and instruments, in addition to the PPP Programme. All of these pro-grammes have the potential to include elements of PPP and CSR. An overview of the business programmes is briefly presented below.

Business Sector Programme Support (BSPS). A BSPS is formulated as other Danida sector programmes and address key issues essential to business and private sector development, in terms of activities improving the enabling environment in the targeted programme countries. Currently Danida has BSPSs in Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, Vietnam and Mali.

Danida’s B2B Programme aims at developing the private sector in a num-ber of developing countries by supporting the establishment of long-term and mutually committing partnerships between Danish companies and com-panies in these countries. The B2B Programme assists local companies in finding a Danish partner company that can help them gain access to Danish technology and know-how. The Danish companies can in turn obtain access to new markets and production opportunities. Genuine local anchorage of the local partner company is an essential precondition (www.b2bprogramme.com).

The Danish Mixed Credit Programme offers interest free or low interest loans with ten years maturity. The Mixed Credit Programme is aimed at fi-nancing equipment and related services supplied by Danish companies within sectors such as water and sanitation, energy, infrastructure, environ-ment, health and education. A mixed credit is basically a „normal‟ interest-bearing buyer‟s credit. The Mixed Credit Programme thus utilises existing commercial and financial mechanisms for providing support to development projects (www.mixed-credits.dk).

The Industrialization Fund for Developing Countries (IFU). IFU‟s legal mandate is to promote economic activity in developing countries by promot-ing investments in these countries in collaboration with Danish trade and in-dustry. IFU operates on commercial conditions and is self-financing. IFU provides share capital, loans, guarantees, and advisory services to joint ven-ture companies in developing countries. IFU takes part in the joint ventures in two different ways: by providing equity capital and/or loans, and as board members in the project companies (www.ifu.dk).

2.3 The Public Private Partnerships Programme

This section is mainly a descriptive outline of the PPP Programme from its initiation to date and includes the formal content of the Programme including components, objectives, project types, reporting requirements etc. The Programme content will be discussed in Section 2.4 and in Chapters 4 and 5.

http://www.b2bprogramme.com/http://www.mixed-credits.dk/http://www.ifu.dk/

8

PPP Programme from 2004-20063

Danida launched the Programme in May 2004. It was presented with an expressed interest in offering the Danish business community the necessary tools to actively engage in local development and strengthening of the local business sectors, „local‟ meaning development activities within the countries targeted by the Programme. The Programme was focused in Danida‟s 15 programme countries with a window for other countries to be included as well.

The Programme was launched as a five-year programme with a budget of DKK 100 million with DKK 20 million to be spent annually, and with the possibility of extra funds related to the establishment of a pension fund (see below) or other special ini-tiatives. The Programme included five sub-programmes:

1. Company CSR initiatives. 2. Training programmes for CSR. 3. Transfer of management know-how. 4. Capacity-building for researchers in programme countries. 5. Business linkage programme, starting with Vietnam.

The responsibility for programme implementation rested with the Business and Contracts Department in Danida. The overall framework for the Programme was poverty reduction and contribution to the MDGs, and more specifically the GC principles. The core of the partnership was additionality and in its first version of the guidelines this was defined as: “the partnership leads to a larger and better contribution to poverty reduction and sustainable development than what the individual actors can obtain independ-ently”4. This is different from the current definition, cf. below.

Initially, the emphasis was put mainly on implementation of the first two sub-programmes. In the beginning of 2005, „Enhanced Competitiveness‟ was added to the programme support approval criteria. The transfer of management expertise and research capacity building sub-programmes, sub-programmes 3 and 4, were given low priority. In 2005, as a separate activity, an agreement for cooperation under the PPP Programme was signed with Danish pension funds5.

3 This section is based on the Danida publication “Offentlige Private Partnerskaber i udviklingssamarbejdet. Oplæg til fem nye programmer”, Maj 2004 and interviews with Danida staff. 4 The consultants‟ own translation from: Danida: “Offentlige Private Partnerskaber i udviklingssamarbejdet. Oplæg til fem nye programmer”, Maj 2004, p. 4. 5 It may be noted that the project involving two Danish pension funds was not one of the projects selected for in depth appraisal – although it is the largest single project supported under the PPP Programme (DKK 47 million). Danida and the two pension funds formed a partnership aiming at investing in local companies in developing countries. “Danida‟s contribution covers the extra cost related to investing in developing coun-tries, e.g. screening of the companies, due diligence surveys, monitoring of the investments, training and edu-cation in the companies in accordance with the GC principles”. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has however considered the project to be of such an atypical character that it will not be looked into in this evaluation study. Moreover, the Auditor General, as part of a general audit of the administration of the B2B and PPP Programmes in 2007, chose to carry out a detailed audit of this particular project and found the administra-tion hereof very satisfactory (Rigsrevisionen, januar 2008).

9

New framework and guidelines 20066

In November 2006, a more comprehensive set of guidelines was introduced with clear programme objectives, clearer distinction between project types and with clearer project assessment criteria. The objectives of the programme were formu-lated as follows:

“The overall objective of the PPP Programme is to contribute to re-ducing poverty by promoting economic growth and social develop-ment in developing countries.

The immediate objective is to promote public private partnerships for better working and living conditions in developing countries by advancing corporate social responsibility and increasing opportunities for investments and enhanced competitiveness through innovation”.

The objectives are to be achieved by establishing public private partnerships that promote corporate social responsibility within the framework of the United Na-tions‟ Global Compact. The guideline introduced six „development impact criteria‟, which in various combinations should form the core of the projects supported by the Programme. The PPP projects should be formulated consistently with the im-mediate objective in such way that they contribute to the overall objective. The six criteria guide the formulation processes, cf. below.

Corporate social responsibility is frequently applied by the individual enterprise, but by linking it with PPPs, the synergy effects, or additionality, attained through coop-eration between several partners have the potential to contribute to wider social and economic development at local or national levels7. Each PPP project has the poten-tial to reduce poverty at the micro level, but macro level impact requires that PPP/CSR be widely adopted by the private and public sectors in developing coun-tries.

The Programme can be applied in all Danida‟s 16 programme countries8 and in South Africa, and in countries with a GNI below USD 2,876 (2007/2008) per capita where Danida has acquired knowledge of the country through other development activities. India and Thailand fall under this latter category, as do the western and northern provinces of China. In 2006, the country-level programme management responsibility was transferred to the embassies in the Danida programme countries and in South Africa, whereas ERH administers the Programme in all other coun-tries. The overall programme management responsibility rests with ERH.

6 This section is based on the PPP Guidelines, Danida, 2006 7 The WB, Public Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: A Baseline Study, October 2002 presents interesting viewpoints on this aspect. The report categorizes and discusses the range of roles that public sector agencies have played in providing an “enabling environment” for CSR. 8 Mali has been added as a programme country, since the Programme was initiated (May 2004).

10

The attainment of the Programme‟s immediate objective is directly linked to the three types of partnership that were introduced with the new guidelines. These part-nerships “can advance CSR by targeting the local workplace and supply chain in the developing country, or through broader efforts targeting the market, sector or community”. The three types of partnership cover:

Workplace/supply chain partnerships (named blue sphere). Partner-ships aimed at managing risks, minimising negative social and environmental impacts at company level, and creating positive value for developing coun-tries and communities by advancing CSR at the workplace and within the supply chain.

Partnerships for development of CSR tools (named green sphere). Danish companies cooperating with their external partners such as commu-nity based organisations, NGOs and local authorities, which can mobilise core competences and resources such as money, products, skills, premises and people to support or strengthen local markets, sectors and communities.

Innovative partnerships (blue and green sphere). Innovative partner-ships from both spheres that aim to enhance investment opportunities and/or the international competitiveness of local companies.

The six „development impact criteria‟ that were introduced in the new guidelines, provide jointly with the three spheres the assessment framework for project applica-tions and how these contribute to the objectives of the PPP Programme. A PPP project must address at least one criterion, but may include any combination of the six criteria – provided that the project attains the immediate objective. The six crite-ria reflect the GC and the MDGs. The criteria are: I Promotion of human and workers‟ rights II Protection and improvement of the environment III Promotion of sound business practices IV Promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women V Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases VI Promotion of innovative partnerships for investments and competitiveness

These six criteria are best understood as „project components‟ as regards to content of the different PPP projects. There is a direct link between the six criteria and the immediate objective of the Programme and in this way it is the intention that the fulfilment of at least one of the six development impact criteria will help achieve the immediate objective of the programme and thereby indirectly also the overall objec-tive. This will be discussed further in the following chapters.

Besides the „six development impact criteria‟, „additionality‟ and „local ownership‟ are other important aspects that are emphasised in the PPP guidelines:

11

Additionality means that, “each partner’s contribution to the partnership is essential for carrying out the project activities”9. Danida can only be a partner if it brings addi-tionality to the partnership through advisory services and/or financial sup-port. Thus, Danida‟s contribution must lead to efforts and activities in the partnership that would not otherwise have been undertaken. In its proce-dures, Danida primarily uses the additionality principle ex ante in the assess-ments of project applications. Neither the project partners nor Danida are required to report on additionality after projects have been carried out.

Local ownership means that, the local partner/partners play an essential role in implementing the project and continue to sustain project outcomes after pro-ject completion. Local ownership is not defined explicitly in the guidelines, but Danida emphasises this aspect, as it contributes to lasting development effects in the developing country. Local ownership could be limited to only encompass the local subsidiary of the Danish company.

The PPP guidelines underline specific requirements related to project milestones and reporting. The applicants must lay down milestones for the project implementa-tion and attainment of the development outcome/impact. Quarterly progress re-ports, including status on milestones must be submitted, as must a final report when Danida‟s support expires. Once a year, the partners must report on how the part-nership is progressing as measured against a predetermined indicator of the partner-ship‟s development impact. When Danida‟s support expires, the partners must con-tinue to report on the indicator for an additional period of three years. Presumably this requirement was developed in response to criticism as regards the fact that re-porting guidelines were not clear during the earlier phases.

The maximum support Danida can provide to a PPP project is 60% of project ex-penses, but with a maximum of DKK 5 million. If the project has received support in a preparatory phase, this amount will be deducted from the DKK 5 million.

2.4 Evaluation and assessment framework

The evaluation and assessment framework applied for this evaluation study is pre-sented in this section. The framework includes the following: the three project spheres, the GC principles, the MDGs, the PPP development impact criteria, addi-tionality, local ownership, the DAC evaluation criteria, and the PPP Programme ob-jectives.

The development impact criteria and global compact

The six development impact criteria will constitute the overall framework for as-sessment of the projects‟ substance and the nature of the impact that is likely to be attained. Even though the criteria were not introduced until 2006, it is still relevant

9 Danida 2006 guidelines, p. 13

12

to assess the earlier projects against these as the underlying principles that are part of the criteria were also concerns of the original PPP Programme, even though not spelled out as clearly as now. Corruption, workers‟ rights, abolition of child labour, gender equality, HIV/AIDS and environmental standards are all mentioned in the 2004 description of the Programme.

It is, furthermore, important to emphasise that the six criteria will be used as an as-sessment framework that helps structure the analysis. As mentioned in the introduc-tion, this evaluation study will provide input to a PPP guidelines revision process internally in Danida. The use of the criteria as assessment framework for both older and newer projects is also interesting in this respect, and project assessments against the development impact criteria will therefore also serve this purpose. This discus-sion will be placed in Chapter 3.

The figure below illustrates the links that exist between the six development impact criteria and the GC. The figure shows that all ten GC principles are contained in the PPP development impact criteria I, II and III.

Criterion IV reflects gender equality, which is a cross-cutting issue in all Danish de-velopment assistance and corresponds to MDG 3. Criterion V reflects an important focus on health, notably malaria and HIV/AIDS and corresponds to MDG 6.

Criterion VI – innovative partnerships, which partly corresponds to MDG 8 – is not connected to any direct social or environmental development impact. According to the guidelines it is mainly aimed at attracting project proposals for innovative part-nerships. However, no definition of what constitutes „innovative‟ seems to have been adopted against which to measure the innovativeness of a particular project. Rarely do projects reveal entirely new approaches – but mostly seek to transfer or adapt established methods and approaches to a new or different context (spatial so-cial, sectoral, or other).

13

Global Compact principles Development Impact Criteria

Human Rights

- Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights;

- Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Labour Standards

- Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;

- Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;

- Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour;

- Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Environment

- Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;

- Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility;

- Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.

Anti-Corruption

- Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

I - Promotion of human and workers’ rights

How will the partnership contribute to promoting and realising human and workers‟ rights, such as freedom of association, the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour and the effective abolition of child labour?

II - Protection and improvement of the environment

How will the partnership contribute to improving the working environment and external environment? How will it take a precautionary approach to environmental challenges, and encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies? How will it address occupational health and safety issues?

III - Promotion of sound business practices

How will the partnership fight corruption including extortion, facilitation payments, and bribery?

IV - Promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women

How will the partnership contribute to strengthening women‟s economic capacity as entrepreneurs, employees and producers?

V - Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

How will the partnership contribute to increasing awareness of, and investment in, health issues?

VI - Promotion of innovative partnerships for investments and competitiveness

How can the partnership contribute, in an innovative fashion, to increasing foreign investments in developing countries and/or improving international competitiveness?

Additionality and local ownership

Earlier, partnerships were eligible for Danida support if they were seen as being able to bring greater and better contributions to development. Today, partnerships are only eligible for support if the activities would otherwise not be carried out. The definition of additionality gives rise to challenges in an assessment; how does one measure this additionality? How can one assess whether the activities would be car-ried out regardless of the support?

A more limited definition of CSR, which is closely related to the principle of addi-tionality, is that project activities should be over and above what is required in local regulations and compliance with these. Hence, activities that merely lead to the local

14

partner‟s fulfilment of national regulation should, in principle, not be eligible for support, as it must be assumed that the local partner would undertake the necessary measures to comply with this regulation regardless of the PPP support. However, if such upgrading could lead to further advancement of CSR issues either in the green or in the blue sphere, it could be argued that projects are eligible for support. A broader definition that considers the overall potential commitment of business to sustainable development is better suited to understanding of additionality in the PPP context.

The assessment and discussion of the selected Programme projects will apply a wider understanding of additionality, as this is likely to lead to a better appreciation of this aspect. In this evaluation and assessment framework, additionality will thus be operationalised as follows:

Projects should only be supported if the activities would not otherwise be carried out;

The projects should promote a general advancement of CSR issues – even though the activities may mainly focus on compliance with national and local regulations;

The projects‟ partnership composition should facilitate dissemination of best practices and sustainability of attained results; and

The projects are mainly implemented in the relatively poorer countries or in the poorer regions of the eligible countries, and target the less affluent seg-ment of the population. The additionality from Danida comes in through the fact that these countries/regions have less of a potential of being targeted by Danish companies.

These different „aspects‟ of additionality are not mutually exclusive, i.e. a project can include more aspects than just one of the above. The case studies in Annex VII will include an additionality assessment of each project based on this operationalisation.

As mentioned above, the partnership in a PPP must as a minimum consist of a Dan-ish company and a local partner. The local partner can be a company, an organisa-tion or a public institution. Real local ownership of projects and activities, such as those that can be supported under the PPP Programme, are normally considered necessary to ensure the sustainability of activities and real impact on poverty reduc-tion.

Already at this point it can be mentioned that Danida is the only public partner in many of the supported projects. It can be argued that if there are no other public partners than the funding source (Danida) in a public private partnership the partnership idea is rather downplayed. The inclusion of a Danish and/or a local public partner could be an advantage to the partnership as the transfer of know-how and institutional learning could be enhanced. Especially, if local public partners are included in PPP projects, additionality and local ownership of these could be sub-

15

stantially strengthened.

Therefore the assessment and discussion of the case studies in Annex VII and in the following chapter will consider local ownership aspects more broadly, i.e. the extent to which public agencies, private companies and civil society are included in imple-menting and sustaining project activities.

DAC evaluation criteria

The six PPP criteria, additionality and local ownership (together termed the PPP Programme criteria) determine the content and implementation modality of the PPP projects that are designed to be coherent within a specific context. The PPP Pro-gramme‟s general performance of enhancing CSR will be the accumulated perform-ance of the PPP projects, and it will thus be important to assess the performance of each selected case study project. The five DAC evaluation criteria10 of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability will be applied to assess the per-formance of each individual project.

It is evident that all six development impact criteria would be relevant and – if ap-propriately incorporated in the project design – that the related activities would gen-erate the warranted impacts. Additionality could enhance efficiency and effective-ness, and increase impacts. Local ownership could enhance efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability; and increase impact. The combined outcomes of the assessments of the PPP and DAC criteria could then contribute to an assessment of the extent to which the objectives have been met or will be met. In the next two chapters a four-step evaluation and assessment framework will be used as follows:

Step 1: The selected projects will be assessed by sphere by applying the PPP Programme criteria (Sections 3.3-3.5);

Step 2: An accumulated assessment by applying the PPP Programme criteria will be made for all projects (Section 4.1);

Step 3: An accumulated assessment by applying the DAC criteria will be made for all projects (Section 4.2);

Step 4: An accumulated assessment of the extent to which the overall objec-tive and immediate objective have been attained will be made for all projects (Section 4.3).

The analysis will be structured around the three current project types. Even though the three types were not established until November 2006, the Danida has also cate-gorised older projects within these three project types and has provided the evalua-tion team with such a list.

10 The OECD/DAC evaluation criteria are widely used by development agencies, including Danida, to assess project and programme performance.

16

Meeting the PPP Programme objectives

Poverty reduction constitutes the overall objective of the Programme, and the part-nerships supported by the PPP Programme should directly or indirectly contribute to reduced poverty and sustainable development. There are many ways in which to measure whether projects contribute to poverty reduction and no clear assessment criteria have therefore been developed. The immediate objective is to attain better working and living conditions in the work place and community in which the PPP project is implemented. As mentioned in Section 2.3 there is a direct link between the six development impact criteria and the immediate objective of the Programme in which compliance with at least one of the criteria, or having one of the criteria as a component, would by definition lead to a fulfilment of the immediate objective. This is an inner logic to the Programme but it makes it difficult to separate the as-sessment of the projects in relation to the development impact criteria and in rela-tion to the immediate objective. The evaluation steps are therefore constructed in such a manner that the assessment of the PPP Programme criteria will feed into the assessment of the immediate and overall objective.

17

3. Assessment of programme performance

3.1 Programme overview

The tables below give an overview of the PPP Programme from May 2004-June 2008. In total, 36 projects have received support.

Overview of all PPP projects, May 2004-June 2008.

Year No. of

projects Geographi-

cal Area No. of

projects

Support received (DKK)

No. of projects Project Type

No. of projects

2004 5 Asia 16 0-1 million 9 Blue sphere 16

2005 5 SS. Africa 9 1.1-2 million 8 Green sphere 13

2006 11 North Africa 5 2.1-3 million 9 Innovative 7

2007 13 Interregional 6 3.1-4 million 3

2008 2 4.1-5 million 6

>5 million* 1

Total 36 Total 36 Total 36 Total 36

* It may be noted that the maximum limit for support is DKK 5 million. Nonetheless, in 2006 a partnership between Danida and PKA Ltd and PBU Ltd regarding sustainable investments in developing countries re-ceived DKK 47 million from the PPP Programme, cf. footnote 5.

Country No. of projects

Programme country

Bangladesh 1 X

China 5

Egypt 5 X

Ghana 1 X

India 4 (X) *

Indonesia 1

Interregional 6

Kenya 3 X

Pakistan 1

Regional Africa (South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Mozambique, Sierra Leone)

3 (X)**

Regional Asia (Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Pakistan, Nepal)

2 (X)***

South Africa 2

Vietnam 2 X

Total 36

* One project in 2005 when India was still a programme country ** Ghana, Uganda and Mozambique are programme countries *** Bangladesh, India (until 2005), Vietnam and Nepal are programme countries

18

The tables show some interesting trends:

The number of approved projects has risen steadily through the years to in-clude 13 in 2007. This trend slowed during 2008 – half way through 2008 only two projects have been approved11.

There is a significant overweight of projects in Asia. As North Africa (as far as Danish programme support is concerned) in essence only comprises Egypt, the Programme has apparently consolidated here, and only China and India have an equal number of projects. It may be noted that India is a for-mer programme country and that Egypt will, by the end of 2008, join the ranks of former programme countries. China becomes the exception here as it was never a programme country but has been targeted for development cooperation in other ways.

Regarding the amount of support received through the Programme, this tends to favour smaller projects, with some three-quarters of the projects funded receiving less than DKK 3 million, and just under half receiving less than DKK 2 million.

Innovative projects are not as highly represented as projects in the blue and green spheres where the blue sphere projects, the workplace/supply chain partnerships, are marginally more important, with the so-called „innovative‟ projects trailing in third place. The rather unclear definition of what consti-tutes „innovative‟ may also contribute to skewing this result as some of the projects in the blue and green spheres can contain innovative elements.

3.2 Selection criteria for projects assessed

As mentioned in the introduction the first step in the analysis is an overall mapping of all projects that have received support through the PPP Programme. The projects are divided into the three project types (blue sphere, green sphere and innovative – with the innovative type including elements of both blue and green spheres). Within each project type portfolio an overview is established of what projects fulfil which of the six development impact criteria12. These three matrices are presented in An-nex VI.

The second step is a closer scrutiny of a sample of projects from each of the three project types pre-selected by Danida. The selection was based on pragmatic criteria, i.e. broad geographical coverage; some already finalised or well into their implemen-tation; and broad thematic coverage. In addition, as step 3, field visits have been un-dertaken to four of these projects. A longer description and analysis of each of the 12 case studies is presented in Annex VII. The following table gives an overview of

11 This is apparently due to the fact that ERH asked applicants to withhold their applications until this evalua-tion study has been finalised. 12 It should however be noted that due to constraints in resources, the evaluation team was asked by Danida to only base this mapping on project title and some overall assessment provided by Danida.

19

the 12 cases:

Sample projects selected as case studies

Case Project title Country Partners (excl Danida) Visit

Projects within the Blue sphere: workplace/supply chain partnerships

1 Management system for environment and social responsibility (2005)

India Butler A/S and Butlers offices in India

2 Establishment of a CSR Management System for the company‟s activities (2006)

China Juelsminde Aluminium-industry, JUAL Metal Products and Chinese Sub-Suppliers

√

3 Partnerships for sustainable business development in India (2006)

India Danish Federation of SMEs & Co-penhagen Centre for CSR.

4 Development and Implementation of CSR Policy and Program for N. Eil-ersen's Furniture Production in China (2006)

China N. Eilersen Ltd and Eilersen Interior Co. Ltd.

√

5 Training Programmes for Working Environment and HIV/AIDS Pro-tection at Shuangxi Garment Factory in China (2006)

China Sundax International Ltd and Shuangxi Garment Factory

√

6 Implementation of CSR in the Cocoa Bean Production in Ghana (2007)

Ghana Toms Group Ltd, IBIS and Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG)

Projects within the Green sphere: partnerships for development of CSR tools

7 Information About HIV/AIDS Pre-vention by the Mobile Phone in Kenya (2004)

Kenya Inmobia, Celtel Kenya and National Aids Control Council

8 Development of Tools for the Im-plementation of HIV/AIDS Policy in Companies in Developing Countries (2004)

Pilot in Uganda and Mozam-bique

The Danish AIDS Fund, the Confed-eration of Danish Industries and Kjaer Group

9 Improved traffic security in fleet of cars In Kenya (2006)

Kenya Fleet Forum and Kjaer Group

10 Improved Environmental Manage-ment System in Auto Repair Paint Industry in Beijing and Chongqing (2006)

China TR Autolakering A/S, BASF Coat-ings AB and six Chinese companies from the spray paint industry

√

Projects within the Blue and Green spheres: innovative partnerships

11 Development of an Internet Portal for Sustainable Investments in Afri-can Companies (2006)

Africa C4-World Ltd and local investment partners

12 Changing Diabetes - Information about Diagnosis as well as Treatment of Diabetes in Egypt (2007)

Egypt Novo Nordisk, the Egyptian Ministry of Health, WHO, medical school, local diabetes partner and NGO

The following three sections assess project partnerships in each of the three spheres and take the form of synthesis of the case study assessments that are elaborated in Annex VII. The same structure is followed in all three sections to allow for ease of

20

comparison. The case study analysis and these three sections will form the basis for the conclusions and recommendations in the following chapters.

3.3 Assessment of ‘workplace/supply chains partnerships’

This section is based on the assessment of the six cases in the blue sphere and ana-lysed in more depth in Annex VII. The analysis here will be a synthesis of the pro-jects within this group and will follow the six development impact criteria and the criteria of additionality and local ownership.

Criterion Case Studies – Blue sphere

I All six case studies include a focus on promotion of human and workers‟ rights. Case 6 in Ghana has a particular strong focus on child labour, similarly as Case 4 in China.

II The cases from China (2, 4 and 5) and India (Case 1 and 3) include a focus on protection and improvement of the environment.

Case 6 (Toms in Ghana) focuses on improved production methods and on a marketing chain for farmers‟ produce. The sustainable production methods sup-port the protection and improvement of the environment. The project empha-

sise both the natural environment – within the context of cocoa production – as well as the working environment of cocoa farmers.

III Narrowly defined as anti-corruption, as in the Danida guidelines, only Case 2 and 3 focus on promotion of sound business practices.

IV None of the projects has any particular focus on promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women.

V Case 5 from China includes a focus on combating HIV/AIDS. There was no documentation found in any of the other cases to show a particular focus on dis-ease (HIV/AIDS, malaria or other).

VI Case 3 from India has a strong focus on increased competitiveness. Even though classified under the blue sphere, the Ghana case study (6) may be termed innova-tive according to the definition used by Danida, as it tries to combine supply chain improvements in cocoa with improvements in the educational system.

Additionality Analysis of the six cases suggests that Case 1, 2 and 3 showed evidence of work-ing constructively with integration of CSR practices into their businesses. Case 1 in China and Case 3 in India also have aspects of expanding CSR practices be-yond the confines of the involved companies, e.g. down the supply chain.

The African Case 6 very clearly draws on additionalities other than finance from Danida. While Danida finance was seen as important in expanding the scope of the project (which they would have implemented anyway but on a much smaller scale), importance was also given to Danida‟s local knowledge and technical fa-cilitation.

Linking back to the operationalisation, Danida additionality has taken many forms in the blue sphere project, but the strongest part has been the dissemina-tion of results/inclusion of sub-suppliers in the activities. In most cases it seems that Danida support has contributed to speeding up a process that was already happening, or expanding the activity outreach. In all cases the very fact of im-plementing the project resulted in outreach and broader inclusivity – as well as

21

putting issues of CSR forward as being important also outside the actual project being funded.

Ownership In four out of the six cases (1, 2, 4 and 5) the local partner in China and India respectively is the subsidiary of a Danish company, and the PPP process has clearly been driven by the Danish company. In none of the four cases does any other public partner exist than Danida. These issues suggest a lack of local own-ership. Some of the cases however suggest that ownership of the project has been „handed over‟ to the subsidiaries after project take-off.

In Case 3 it was also concluded that there was a clear Danish ownership of the project even though a range of local partners were included, since planning, im-plementation and sustaining of results was in the hands of the Danish partner. The African Case (6) has a much wider ownership platform, which includes the public and private sector, as well as national and international NGOs.

3.4 Assessment of ‘partnerships for development of CSR tools’

This section is based on the assessment of the four cases falling into the Green sphere and analysed in more depth in Annex VII. The analysis here will be a synthe-sis of the projects within this group and will follow the six development impact cri-teria and the criteria of additionality and local ownership.

Criterion Case Studies – Green sphere

I Case 7 and 8 place a very strong emphasis on workers‟ rights.

II The case from China (Case 10) places a strong emphasis on the working envi-ronment; the same is true for Case 8, which places a strong emphasis on the ne-cessity of HIV/AIDS activities as a key area of concern within the working envi-ronment of participating partner companies. The case involving the improved fleet management (of vehicles involved with humanitarian activities – Case 9) also places strong emphasis on the working environment (OSH conditions) of those involved with transport management and operations.

III Narrowly defined as anti-corruption, as Danida has done in the guidelines, none of the projects focus on sound business practices. It could however be argued, that sound business practices could or should be considered broader than this.

IV There is no particular gender focus in any of the four cases.

V Two of the African cases (7 and 8) have a particular focus on HIV/AIDS whilst the third African case study (Case 9) includes HIV/AIDS as a crosscutting ele-ment. This is not the case with case Study 10 from China – possibly also a reflec-tion of the fact that this is considered to be less of a problem in China.

VI At least one of these case studies (Case 7 - Immobia) is considered to be innova-tive by the evaluators – indicating that the judgement as to whether an approach is innovative or not often relates to a value judgement. The remaining three case studies are all much more conventional.

Additionality In the two African HIV/AIDS cases (7 and 8), Danida has been involved in sub-ject matter related inputs. The pattern seems to be that in the Africa cases, which are in programme countries, much more use is made of Danida‟s potential tech-

22

nical additionality.

The role of other partners remains crucial – the absence of support from Danish companies to integrate HIV/AIDS advocacy was crucial to it being suspended by Danida (Case 8); the cutting back of support by Celtel in the Kenya HIV/-AIDS project was instrumental in lowering impact and shifting the target group from poor to middle income, which is a draw-back in respect of additionality, cf. the operationalisation.

Involvement of teaching institutions as a spin-off from implementation activities is another example of activities being taken on board by external institutions, which will have a wider impact than the areas covered by the PPP.

Generally and in relation to the operationalisation of additionality, in the cases in the Green sphere there seems to be good additionality in form of dissemination of results and best practices and also several of these projects might not have taken place without the Danida support. On top of this, three of the projects are carried out in some of the poorest countries in Africa.

Ownership All these cases involve many different corporate actors that could take up differ-ent kinds of ownership. Proxy indicators are the creation of training courses in related institutions (Case 10 – China) and implementation of the result of activi-ties elsewhere. In this regard, there is a good chance that Case 9 (Traffic security) and Case 7 (mobile-phone HIV/AIDS prevention) may be taken on board lo-cally as they are more widely implemented (both nationally and regionally). It seems, however, as if this process is driven by the Danish partners and not by the local partners, indicating low ownership. The case study, which focussed on developing approaches through implementation within an already committed

company – and hoping that this would inspire others – failed and was suspended by Danida. Summing up, there has been a lack of local ownership in projects within the green sphere.

3.5 Assessment of ‘innovative partnerships’

This section is based on the assessment of the two cases that are labelled „innovative partnerships‟ which are analysed in more depth in Annex VII. The analysis here will be a synthesis of the projects within this group and will follow the six development impact criteria and the criteria of additionality and local ownership.

Criterion Case Studies – Blue & Green: Innovative partnerships

I Case 11 has a focus on human rights through increased access to health services. Case 12 has no particular focus on human and workers rights.

II None of the projects has any particular focus on environmental issues.

III None of the cases focuses on promoting sound business practices understood as combating corruption.

IV Neither of the cases has targeted gender issues.

V Case 11 has no particular focus on the combating of diseases, Case Study 12 (Novo in Egypt), by contrast, has this as its main feature.

VI Both cases were examined under this category – Danida identified these cases as being „innovative‟. However, as will be also discussed later, „innovation‟ is both

23

one of the six development impact criteria and a project type, and the definition of what constitutes „innovation‟ is both vague and, as a result, value-laden. Is in-novation something, which Danida has never financed before? Or is it some-thing, which breaks away from what has been done in the past, contributes to setting new paths and questioning accepted precepts, thinks outside the box, etc? As regards the two cases, their innovativeness is closer to the first than to the second definition.

Additionality It is not clear whether the two projects would have been carried out without Danida support, and as such it is difficult to judge this aspect of additionality. Case 11 does not relate to any aspect of regulations, and the Danida additionality does not come in here either. In Case 12, the project components are clearly ex-ceeding local regulations and the project furthermore could potentially dissemi-nate good results. Neither of the projects targets the poorest segments of the population in the countries in which they operate.

Clearly, the additionality from Danida is very limited in these two cases. Where there is additionality, this comes in through the support from other agencies (Case 12), such as Egyptian Health Agencies and the WHO. This is not the situa-tion for case 11 (C4), which did not manage to achieve buy-in from nationally, based finance institutions. Partnerships have been formed and many of the same features can be seen as shown under the „Blue‟ and „Green‟ spheres.

Ownership It is the buy-in, planning, implementation and sustaining of results from nation-ally based institutions, which will define ownership in the long run. This does not appear to have been achieved in Case 11 (C4) but looks as if it will be achieved in Case 12 (Egypt).

3.6 Programme management and reporting procedures

The reporting procedures under the PPP Programme have been gradually harmo-nised, which has streamlined the monitoring procedures. Templates for quarterly reports have been developed as have templates for indicators and milestones. A stronger emphasis on planning and preparation including establishing project targets and indicators of achievements could, however, have eased project implementation as well as reporting. In the cases reviewed, the approvals of quarterly reports seem to require several rounds of clarification. This consumes valuable time and delays reimbursement, which again impedes the implementation of the project. The general attitude observed is that better planning at the start would have paid off during im-plementation. This could in principle consist of a simplified description of the cur-rent state (simplified baseline) of the goal to be reached, as well as a description of planned input, actions and indicators for achieving targets.

A major issue relates to the delays in response times from Danida, including delays with responding to reports and delays in payments, which result in implementation delays. It is, however, unclear whether the delays are a consequence of a compli-cated reporting procedure that could be simplified; a product of poor reporting by the company; whether it is due to a poor understanding of the terminology used by Danida; or whether this is a simply because the public sector and the private sector need to learn to work together. It is furthermore not clear whether this has im-proved following decentralisation of management to the Danish embassies.

24

4. Evaluation synthesis and lessons learned

4.1 Overall performance according to the PPP Programme criteria

The matrix below synthesizes the performance across all three PPP project types according to the six development impact criteria and the principles of additionality and local ownership. It is based on the analysis of the case studies in Annex VII and the sphere-by-sphere assessments in Chapter 3.

Criterion Overall performance

I 9 out of 12 projects have focus on promotion of human and workers rights. This is the criterion that scores highest – 75%.

II Case studies from Asia – across the spheres – tend to focus on the working envi-ronment within factories; whereas the African case studies are more likely to place the project within a broader societal context – which can probably be seen as a reflection of the difference between levels of industrialisation. 8 out of 12 projects had a focus on environment.

III Narrowly defined as fighting corruption, including extortion, facilitation payments and bribery, only three cases, two in China and one in India, had a focus on sound business practices. All three projects were within the blue sphere.

IV None of the projects in the sample had any particular focus on gender equality or empowerment of women.

V HIV/AIDS and other diseases do not seem to be covered as cross-cutting issues (apart from the Kenya transport pool case). Instead HIV/AIDS, diabetes, etc., are included as one of the main areas of focus in four cases, and cross-cutting issue in one case.

VI The issue as regards how to define „innovation‟ brings a certain amount of confu-sion. By definition, the two „innovative‟ projects in the innovative partnership sphere should be considered to be innovative – although the innovative aspects of these cases are not necessarily evident. By contrast, the evaluators consider at least three of the other 10 cases to be at least partly „innovative‟.

Additionality Additionality on the part of Danida in some cases seems to be purely financial – and it remains difficult to judge whether projects would have taken place without Danida support. This is especially so for the Asian projects. However, especially in the African programme country cases there are indications that the Danish em-bassy has also played a more central role, providing support on subject-matter is-sues, technical support and/or facilitation. This might also be the case in non-African programme countries, but none of the case study projects were imple-mented in programme countries outside of Africa.

In all cases, the „whole‟ turns out to be greater than the respective „parts‟-except in one project, which was closed by Danida as a result of non-participation. Danida financial support has stimulated or accelerated a process which might have hap-pened anyway; while in the African cases, Danida technical know-how and broad knowledge of the business environment in the case countries has also contributed by adding (non-financial) value to the project.

None of the projects would have had any impact without the commitment of all the partners – some of whom went in whole-heartedly (and thus contributed with considerable value-added) while others were less committed, with the result that

25

the achievements were also more limited. Furthermore, many cases have good prospect of dissemination of results to a wider audience than the project partners, which is also part of additionality. It is, however, premature to conclude whether this will materialise.

Ownership African case studies tend to build on a wider ownership platform (which also makes securing of ownership much more challenging) whilst Asian cases tend to be partnerships between Danish companies and national subsidiaries. This conclu-sion is however also linked to the different project types, where it can be stated that projects in the Green sphere and innovative partnerships build on this wider platform of partners.

The ownership challenge in the Asian cases tend to focus on incorporating new procedures more widely through links with related training institutions taking new approaches on board in their training programmes.

Very few projects include local public partners (only Case 12 in Egypt and Case 7 in Kenya), which probably limits the local ownership and probable spreading of best practices. In by far the majority of the cases Danida is the only public partner and it can therefore be argued that terming the programme „Public Private Part-nership‟ is rather misleading and needs reconsidering.

4.2 Performance according to the DAC criteria

Relevance All case studies are judged to be very relevant as they address needs in the recipi-ent countries.

Efficiency Most projects have encountered some efficiency problems – particularly in the Asian cases. There were frequent reports of delays and it appears that these de-lays were a result of procedural difficulties related to reporting demands and fi-nancial disbursements from Danida. Efficiency issues also arose in relation to local partners not formalising agreements or failing to recruit staff – which also contributed to delays.

For the African cases, partner companies gave the appearance of being very effi-cient with their handling of Danida and other resources (possibly because Danida is a more central sparring partner in the African programme countries). No re-ports of late payments or reporting problems were seen in the materials available; however, as regards the Asian case studies there seem to be more issues related to reporting as well as (or resulting in) late disbursement from Danida (this could also be the result of a lacking familiarity with Danida and its procedures).

Effectiveness As regards effectiveness, it remains difficult to draw conclusions particularly as, in many cases, no milestones or indicators are included in the project description or addressed in the monitoring reports. However, despite efficiency problems, most projects have been effective in meeting their objectives.

Impact Impact is still difficult to judge at this early stage, apart from Case 8, which was terminated by Danida (and which will therefore not have any impact). However, for the rest of the cases, initial results do show that there is likelihood that there will be positive impacts – although maybe less than hoped for and less wide-spread (in a number of cases partners withdrew or changed the conditions of their participation – which contributed to downsizing expected impacts). How-ever, in the great majority of cases, measures are being taken which will lead to a series of positive impacts (notably linked to integration of results into training activities outside the actual PPP as well as incorporation into curricula of training institutions and schools/colleges/universities.) There is also evidence of devel-

26

oped best practices being incorporated by suppliers into their own activities.

Sustainability In all cases this is too early to judge with any certainty although indications are positive, i.e. regulations are being passed locally to support what is being achieved; CSR procedures are being applied; progress is being made towards in-tegration of training modules into university or school curriculum; etc. Sustain-ability also depends strongly on the commitment not just of the business partner funded by Danida, but also on all the others involved in the partnership.

4.3 Fulfilment of programme objectives

Overall Ob-jective:

The focus in all the cases is on how to improve the way in which companies and organisations function. Improvements here will then have spin-offs, which could include elements of poverty alleviation.

The general assessment of poverty reduction in the cases is positive but by no means dramatic. The basic premise, for example of the Asian cases, seems to be that poverty alleviation will be achieved through a trickle down effect-or a con-centric circle effect. Direct attribution will, however, be difficult to prove; al-though the projects do move in the right direction to support wider poverty alle-viation programmes. If there is to be a real poverty impact, then a better analysis will need to be carried out as part of the project preparation process to better as-sess likely project impact.

In contrast to the Asian cases, the African case studies do tend to have a more direct and explicit focus on poverty alleviation – through focus on farm workers and children, creation of small business; HIV/AIDS counselling and prevention, etc.

Immediate objectives

Fulfilment of the PPP Programme‟s immediate objectives is considered satisfac-tory and well in line with the development impact criteria of the Programme. The promotion of the PPPs is not emphasised in the workplace/supply chain projects in Asia, whereas there has generally been a high emphasis on corporate social re-sponsibility in all projects. Innovation in the broader sense of the word has also been a feature in a number of projects, but less so in relation to investments and competitiveness.

4.4 Lessons learned

The layout of this section largely follows that of the previous section, and is based on the six development impact criteria, the additionality and local ownership criteria, and on the five DAC evaluation criteria.

Development impact criteria: The issuing of the guidelines and development of the six criteria in 2006 proved useful in adjusting the projects to the GC principles and the MDGs – although a number of projects approved under the old criteria would no longer have been eligible according to the new guidelines.

There is a clear overweight of projects that respond to Criterion I, promotion of human and workers rights, and II, protection and improvement of the environment, which also could be termed as typical CSR elements. One critical issue is that none of the projects respond to development impact Criterion IV on promotion of gen-

27

der equality and empowerment of women. Gender equality is a cross-cutting issue in all Danish development assistance and is as such integrated in the PPP Programme through Criterion IV but as none of the case